Blog PostsParecon’s Achilles’ Heel
By J.D. Casten at Jul 06, 2010 |
|
Parecon’s Achilles ’ Heel: The Class Division of Fame and Brawn
One might not suspect Arnold Schwarzenegger to be a hero of Parecon, but in this post, I propose that two of his attributes—fame and brawn—are those that the Parecon system as detailed in Parecon – Life After Capitalism celebrates.
Now, I’m not big fan of state-capitalism… but to put my cards on the table, I’ll say up front that I’m for employee owned businesses encouraged by tax incentives. I see the widespread enactment of employee owned business to be a step between what we have and something more fair, like Parecon aspires to be. I am not hostile to Parecon… I believe in many of the critiques of capitalism and the values of Parecon as expounded in Michael Albert’s book. But I’m skeptical of any system that claims any sort of finality that might not be improved upon. I think Parecon could be, to use Albert’s term, “tweaked” (Parecon, p. 252).
I will not be arguing against Parecon’s politicizing of the economy at every turn (that is, that in practice, the economy would be held up by endless debate… as illustrated by Albert’s own endless debates defending Parecon)—as I think we really could use more discussion about the sorts of things that Parecon citizens would decide on.
No… my targets here would be the glorification of fame in Parecon, as a substitute for monetary rewards, and the continued use of “braininess” as an example of what talent is, and how brainy talent should not be rewarded (monetarily)—but brawny talent applied to “onerous” work should be given the cold hard cash (or electronic currency). My critique is spurred by a belief that the fame incentive for innovation (that the talented should use their talents to help society progress) is shallow, is not a real incentive, and really shouldn’t be one; and that by focusing arguments about talent on “brain-talent”—Albert ignores the fact that some are born also with physical talents that do get rewarded monetarily for perceived effort for the jobs done. One gets the picture of those “Soviet Realism” artworks that glorify brawny farmers and factory workers (or even, in the US, Rosy the Riveter)—glorified at the expense of those who might replace such onerous labor with technological advances.
In chapter 17 – “Meritocracy / Innovation” (Parecon, pp. 248-252), Albert claims:
“It is true we do not recommend paying those with more training higher wages since we believe it would be inequitable to do so. But that does not mean people would not seek to enhance their productivity by becoming more knowledgeable. First of all, education and training would be public expenses, not private. So there are not material disincentives to pursing education and training. Secondly, since parecon is not an ‘acquisitive’ society, respect, esteem, and social recognition would be based largely on ‘social serviceability’ which is enhanced precisely by developing one’s most socially useful potentials through education and training” (Parecon, p. 249-250).
And
“Furthermore, an individual’s contribution is often the product of genius and luck as much as diligence and persistence, and personal sacrifice, all of which implies that recognizing innovation through social esteem rather than material reward is ethically superior” (Parecon, p. 250).
I can see no other way to describe the praise of “social esteem” than as a celebration of fame. In other words, you should seek to innovate, using your brain, not in order to get more pay, but to become famous.
Not everyone questions the value of fame, but I do. In the internet age, where as Nick Currie claimed, “in the future, everyone will be famous for 15 people”—fame has become more and more decentralized. There are many many artists, musicians, etc. who have relatively small audiences… and audiences, I believe, have become more varied in their interests. True, we still have television and movie stars—and also (and this will become important in a moment) intellectual and political celebrities. But the internet has helped, I think, to decentralize this form of Power.
How is fame a form of Power? It carries the power to influence people, based on a perceived authority— we sometimes see movie-stars endorsing products: why does this work?—they have persuasive power, based on their celebrity. Michael Jordan is probably not an expert on sneakers to the extent that his endorsement can help sell them. If power can move mountains (and product)… what would be more powerful than fame? Material wealth? What does that get you, other than a big boat, nice house, etc? Yes, in a capitalist society, one can hire other people to increase one’s wealth… and at worst, use that position to exploit labor and buy off politicians… but what good is a politician, if they don’t have a bit of fame?…fame that often has as much do with their celebrity personality, the celebration of charisma, as it does with proficiency in legislative ability (although the two may coincide).
So, on the one hand, Parecon trades one sort of power, money, for another: fame.
But, on the other hand, I believe that fame not only should not be an incentive for innovation on moral grounds (power equality)… but that fame is a way of short-changing people who innovate.
Here’s Albert’s argument for people innovating, not for fame, but for perceived self-interest:
“In a parecon, however, workers also have a ‘material incentive,’ if you will, to implement innovations that improve the quality of their work life. This means they have an incentive to implement changes that increase the social benefits of the outputs they produce or that reduce the social costs of the inputs they consume, since anything that increases an enterprise’s social-benefit-to-social-cost ratio will allow the workers to win approval for their proposal with less effort, or sacrifice, on their part.” (Parecon, p. 252).
What Albert is claiming here is that a person’s innovations will make their work easier. But people get paid for how difficult their work is in parecon, not for how easy it is! In a perverse way, people are stuck with a choice: keep the work hard, and get paid more for it, or innovate, make it easier, and get paid less. Now, if this “easier” part made labor quicker, then we’d have more time to do other paying tasks. But this is not always the case—sometimes a lever makes the load less heavy but just as time-consuming to move. Although getting paid for how onerous your work is, is fair… it could lead to people not innovating in ways that would make their work easier.
Let’s take an example: the toilet scrubbing robot. Now, I believe everyone should take their fair-share of toilet scrubbing duty. But when I’m paid, or I see that many are paid for scrubbing toilets, and that inventing that toilet scrubbing robot would put us all in a position to do less onerous work—then we’d all get paid less, and wouldn’t see the return for some time (with the over-all less labor for everyone that frees people up to do other services.) Not everyone would see, or would be willing to wait for, innovations eventually having a social impact that they share—while in the meantime, less pay for less onerous work.
Albert also claims:
“It should be recognized that no economy ever has paid or ever could pay its greatest innovators the full social value of their innovations, which means that if material compensation is the only reward, innovation will be under-stimulated in any case. Moreover, too often material reward is merely an imperfect substitute for what is truly desired: social esteem” (Parecon, p. 250).
Again, one type of power is traded for another (money for fame). One could imagine, at an extreme, a bunch of famous innovators, and better paid workers, where the muscle-bound Morlocks have all the best paying jobs, but the brainy Eloi have all the fame. Maybe this is fairer than the Eloi having both the fame and the money—but I think Parecon still has a class-caste-system built in (as between, in the army, educated officers and non-commissioned officers; on ZNet, between the official writers and the non-official; between the Lords and the Commons; between the Capitalists and the Proletariats, etc.)—the brainy innovators with fame, and the brawny laborers with the better paying jobs. True… the brainy could decide to work at more onerous jobs, and get more pay… but are the brawny to be denied the power of fame? Maybe Arnold Schwarzenegger could prove otherwise.
To the point, my question would be: could Parecon give a few vast amounts of power, in the form of Fame? Why is that sort of power inequality just? Doesn’t Parecon replace money-class society with a fame-class society? (Remember, fame carries a bit of power!)
The corollary question is this: If fame isn’t powerful, then why is it seen as good as money, as far as stimulating innovation? Is adulation really that desirable in itself?
I really don’t have a solution to this problem—Parecon might fare better here than state-capitalism… but I believe a crucial error is not to tie more monetary value to an individual’s contribution to social value (as is done with royalties). I believe Albert would reject royalties, even with a cap, as sneaking markets in the back (or front) door—but I think in some cases, consumer markets, democracy of the dollar, can lead to their own type of fairness and incentives for socially useful innovation.
Answering your two last comments...
By Albert, Michael at Jul 08, 2010 16:11 PM
Reply this comment
Re: Answering your two last comments...
By Casten, J.D. at Jul 08, 2010 18:46 PM
Thanks Michael—I’ll put Realizing Hope on my stack of “to read”—but that will take some time, considering my schizophrenia (makes life hard).
But I do think you’ve mischaracterized an aspect of my thinking; you say:
“You have a tendency to see a real problem - excess influence due to fame - exclusivity breeding advantages, and to then wipe out the whole thing tout court - with no nuance....and I think that is a problem. So you keep wanting to deal with fame without allowing that notoriety can take various forms - some good, some bad - and so on....but later for all this. Please - if you want to explore further, I think it is fair for me to say, I just don't have time now - and, in any case, I have written about all this far more carefully, less verbosely, etc. so take a look at that, rather than making me do it all again, here, less well...okay?”
I thought I made it clear by my examples (the internet, the indie movie/music/publishing scene, DIY garage bands, Wikipedia, home-presses) examples of decentralizing fame— that I’m talking about spreading it more, not eliminating it: giving more people voices in our media culture. Okay—nough said.
Reply this comment
Re: Parecon’s Achilles’ Heel
By Albert, Michael at Jul 06, 2010 14:45 PM
Hi JD.
Reply this comment
Appeal to Ad Hominem
By Casten, J.D. at Jul 06, 2010 16:57 PM
Thanks Michael for your lengthy and detailed reply.
As I stated earlier, “I believe in many of the critiques of capitalism and the values of Parecon as expounded in” your work. I wasn’t really trying to identify a defect in Parecon, as much as relate some of my thinking about Fame as a sort of class-power and how that might persist, or might even be encouraged in your vision of a future economic system. I am serious about this issue… no games… but I’m not an opponent of Parecon… I think certain aspects of the vision could be changed. But I may have mislead with my essay title—I think something would have to be done about fame as a power, or it could undermine some core values concerning the decentralization of power. But our differences are minor relative to our agreements—I point out the differences here, but have pointed to Parecon in other forums and to other friends, as a place to look for inspiration (as opposed to, say, communism).
I think much of what I’m concerned about (undue influence due to notoriety), could be better addressed to the mass media which I recently read about under parpolity. I think the media is one of those areas that limn the edge between Parecon and Parpolity—and some the issues I raise could be addressed with this later focus. I’m not arguing that Parecon would not be better than what we do have with state-capitalism, despite my closing remarks on royalties. I see royalties as tied to markets, because people would get paid more, if there is more demand for their work—this is what I meant by “democracy of the dollar.” People are, unfortunately, sometimes more careful with their money expenditures than they are with their votes, or political participation. But yes, this could be dangerous.
Would a system where fame came to the few be better than where money is concentrated? I’m not so sure. If it were possible to get rich in Parecon because of royalties, that might get some people jealous—I think a sense of unfairness might arise: why does so and so get more money, just because they wrote a best-seller, while I break my back digging ditches (among other duties in a balanced job complex that both a writer and ditch-digger would have). But I think people might be jealous of fame too—and I think your pointing to it as an incentive (for innovation) proves that it does have some perceived value. Of course, you don’t call it “fame,” but different appellations, such as “social esteem.” Do you really mean self-esteem, as reflected by one’s immediate peers? I don’t think so… I think you’re also talking about what Plato called “the eternal role of fame” that so many desire—to make a mark in history… to be a “somebody” as it is sometimes sadly termed. If you don’t mean this… I think it is a failure in the clarity of your own writing. Why else would the “esteem” need be “social.” Ideally, one would know in their own heart of hearts that they gave a gift (of innovation) anonymously—not for the return of owed gratitude—the very opposite of giving a thankful beggar a wooden nickel.
What I’m talking about (and possibly conflating) is being a “media personality” – how a person can get to that STAGE through being recognized for their excellence in a field—but then using that stage as a platform from which to now wield their new found “public-bullhorn” to persuade people to follow their lead in areas that are not in their field… or possibly within their field, based on their authority, rather than on the merits of their message. Michael, how can you deny that this happens in our current social system? And how do you think Parecon (or maybe Parpolity) will get us beyond this? (Especially when you suggest we should encourage social adulation (esteem) for innovators?)
Yes… Arnold Schwarzenegger may know a thing or two about politics… especially considering his wife is Maria Shriver (who is Kennedy related)—and so might Jessie Ventura, and Ronald Reagan. But don’t tell me these people are getting voted into office just on message alone. Now, paripolity might not have representatives like this… but these are definite examples of how people sway and lead in the public sphere, due to recognition initially gained in other fields. (And again, why would fame-authority even in one’s on field mean ANYTHING, when content of message is what counts? Appeal to authority (and ad-hominem) arguments are logically fallacious! Einstein had a thing or two to say about politics… some very wise… but why do we know about him and not some other fount of wisdom who never got to the public stage? We need to turn from a history of Kings to a history of the people! From a history of the famous, to a present of the everybody… that’s what I’m talking about. Real decentralization of power, not only monetary, but who has the public microphone as well. I think we can see some of this happening with the internet, and alternative media. So no… I do not think we should be looking for public esteem for individual innovation.
Perhaps you are right, that there is material reward (for all) with innovation. But that reward is so diffused (we ALL take a share), that the innovator never really gets their “lions’”share of what they HELPED accomplish. Maybe this should be that way, as so many advances are social, not of the loner individual. I would drop this part of my critique, only to note that diffused material reward is no real reward for the individual—other than them knowing that they helped the community.
I’ll drop the “brawn” issue too… but I think it a failure of your writing clarity, not my projection, not to point out that words like “onerous” are meant to apply to intellectual efforts as well as physical ones.
Don’t get me wrong… I couldn’t put enough smiley faces on my appreciation for Parecon, as it has inspired me, to the extent that I think about political-economic issues. But I think you’re dead wrong, if you believe fame should be a motivator for innovation. Applying oneself to innovation to benefit society… possibly this should always be an anonymous and selfless gesture—but that may be expecting everyone to be a saint… or at least a lot of people… and I think some of those devils could help out too… if we just gave them a bigger slice of the innovation dividends. My idea would be give a royalty of rapidly diminishing returns—I think you stand against this on principle, not on pragmatics.
I think you’re right on the money on your critique of Soviet Realism, Rosie the Riveter, etc. Like so much Political Correctness, and Identity Politics, it paints a nice semiotic veneer on an ugly material surface. I can’t see social esteem to be like one of those posters though… a brownie button/merit badge: I think it leads to that public stage, where everyone should have their 15 minutes of fame—not just the authority figures.
So in sum, I concede on the brain vs. brawn issue; I concede that people ought to feel good about just contributing to socially valuable innovations w/o dramatic material reward (maybe not any)… but I remain adamant that fame (or social esteem) should not be held out as a reward for excellence—it’s a shallow reward, and one that can lead to false public authority; and I really believe that a little material incentive would help with innovation. Possibly on this last point, we would agree on “innovation teems” being paid for just that: innovation.
And if you don’t think Ronald Reagan being elected president is a serious issue… well… I’m at a loss. I think decentralizing fame would have serious impact on people’s lives—liberate us from the tyranny of “leaders” (and put the focus on critical evaluation of message). Thanks again for your time, and clarifications.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Pareconâ??s Achillesâ?? Heel
By Corbett, Jean-Francois at Jul 08, 2010 11:34 AM
Michael,
The question about the material incentive for innovation in parecon has been nagging me for a while. Let us assume that such a material incentive would be warranted, because some element of selfishness remains and that not everyone derives happiness from innovating just to have everyone else in society benefit from it.
You write:
"But you are right that there is a trade off in time for long term gains - and if you look closely you will see parecon recognizes that and notes that it COULD choose to have innovating firms benefit somewhat more sooner, to provide more incentive, or not. "
Let us consider a delay between
Such a delay would indeed be one way to provide a material incentive for innovation, in the form of a temporarily reduced intensity-duration-onerousness (IDO... nice acronym :-) for the person or firm that worked on and carried out this innovation.
However this delay would un-balance the job complexes of the innovators relative to everyone else, for a while. How does one weigh this reduced fairness against the social benefit of innovation?
Also, there would have to be some kind of dampening mechanism placed on the delay with reduced IDO, otherwise a runaway process could developed in which the IDO reduction is reinvested by the firm to create new innovations, which in turn gets rewarded by further IDO reductions, and so on. So a single firm could carve out a space for itself with entirely cushy, permanently unbalanced, innovation-based jobs.
Let me know if you can point me to somewhere where this topic is discussed.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Pareconâ??s Achillesâ?? Heel
By Albert, Michael at Jul 08, 2010 14:00 PM
Jean,
Reply this comment
The Parecon Elite?
By Casten, J.D. at Jul 06, 2010 09:17 AM
As a follow up, I would note that Fame could be endlessly accumulated (think: a great author or actor)—and even passed on in a family (think of the Kennedy’s)—and this could be parleyed into politically persuasive power. True, this couldn’t be turned to monetary gain… but I’m suggesting that Class has more to do with Power than it does with Possessions.
With this split, the “brainy/talented” could endlessly accumulate fame, while the “brawny” (and brainy) hard-workers would be limited in how much money they could accumulate by working harder; hence Parecon would allow for a new elite power class.
There might be ways to put a clamp on fame: like having no MASS-media. This may seem troubling to some (what about freedom of the press?)… but would be similar to having no ACCUMULATED-wealth allowed—which would be troubling to others (why not pass on the family mansion to one’s kids?)
Such is to say, that I think Parecon defers some power issues, esp. fame and its political implications, outside and beyond Parecon itself—but since Parecon politicizes the economy, fames’ political implications become all the more important.
Reply this comment
Re: The Parecon Elite?
By Albert, Michael at Jul 06, 2010 14:58 PM
JD,
Your admonition that fame can be translated into power and accumulated, and passed on - honestly - is dealt with in the prior post. It is a fair concern, though I think if you think carefully about parecon taking seriously its description, you will see it is misplaced. But, for this comment, even in our society, it bears little basis in fact. The kids of artists, scientists, writers, etc. etc. have very big advantages due to family wealth - absent in a parecon - but even with that, they very rarely accrue serious power benefits. The families you point to actually have property and positions that convey power - not simply fame.
The only way to endlessly accumulate praise - in a parecon - would be to endlessly do very highly admired things - which is good if it occurs - though very very rare. And you would not be accumulating power, or wealth, or anything that you could transfer to others, or exploit.
But the main thing is, JD - I have to say that I find it incredibly strange when people try to criticize parecon by some kind of ultra egalitarian claim - fame can generate injustice - rarely with any basis in the reality of the parecon system - but then display no real regard for their own words when they offer, as proposals, options that would be vastly worse not only regarding indices that are not discussed, but even the indices they claim to be concerned about.
In this case, if you think being praised is dangerous for society because it can generate social division that can be exploited - even to the point of class rule - okay, fair enough. But then you should be suggesting steps that would either eliminate praise - such as it isn't permitted or eliminated vehicles for it, as in your example - or steps that would at least reduce any possibility of praise leading to a self reproducing inequality that hurts some and benefits others - which of course parecon includes and you propose to eliminate - by rewarding output.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: The Parecon Elite?
By Casten, J.D. at Jul 06, 2010 17:23 PM
Again… I see your point about a contradiction or hypocrisy. I guess I see some remuneration (just a little) for output, or demand as less dangerous than the potential for fame abuse. I think remuneration is a substantial reward (but again, getting just a little more for appeasing or helping the public)—and that if fame is substantial, that is more dangerous. I don’t believe in intellectual rewards for intellectual efforts, when those efforts have material impact… they should have material reward (but not enough to sail out of employment!)-- but again... innovation teams... a real good idea.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: The Parecon Elite?
By Albert, Michael at Jul 06, 2010 18:11 PM
Remuneration for output - is typically that you get back income in proportion to the value of what you produce, as compared to others, or an average. If you believe in this type remuneration, then Kobe Bryant is currently underpaid...
So solving the possible problem of insufficient short run material incentive for innovation - if it turns out to exist - by remunerating output replaces a modest problem with a massive one.
What parecon would do, instead, it say that for innovations some gain is apportioned to the site of the innovation - so, in a firm, suppose we do an innovation that makes work more pleasant. You could have it be that until this innovation is implemented everywhere, our firms gets a benefit that is not averaged out to others, or only partially so...as one kind of choice that is possible.
As to the dangers of fame - you have to think (a) people would receive sufficient praise and notoriety that they would be quite visible, (b) they can parlay that visibility into some kind of serious and unwarranted personal gain, (c) worse, they can accrue the gain and hand it on, etc. and (d) there is some better solution to adopt.
I don't think you have made any case for b, or c, given that income can't be increased, nor voting rights, etc. - nor even a suggestion about d...
Your only real argument about fame, so far, runs like this. I do something. It is admired and praised. I get celebrated, parades, whatever. Then I take this fame and I use it to have undo influence - which in turn rebounds to my benefit. The thing is, You haven't given any reason to think I can use my fame to do anything that isn't in people's interests, nor to impose anything at all, nor how whatever I do can rebound to my interest...
Reply this comment
Are YOU Serious?
By Casten, J.D. at Jul 06, 2010 22:14 PM
I’ll set aside small royalties… we disagree (I’m not claiming someone who makes expensive jewelry should get more than a junk-jewelry maker—just that there should be some material incentive, especially for creative types and engineers, to do works that are popular and socially useful)—not an either/or, all or nothing proposition… something in-between—we may just disagree here.
But Re: Fame – what I think you fail to acknowledge is that people are often swayed by people they admire, not on the merits of what they argue, but because they “believe” in these people. Too many people tow the party line in my opinion, often following a cult of personality, and not always a rational agenda that they have thought through themselves. Most often, famous people… public personalities that is, are not continually famous for anything but their ability to speak well in public… maybe even be thought provoking, but not necessarily the best “leaders” for people who don’t have time to think through everything for themselves. First they’re an astronaut, war-hero, actor, radio DJ, pro-wrestler… or successful scholar—they get name-recognition… a following… and in many cases they then try to steer that following towards their way of seeing things. I think it’s a natural tendency.
I’m not saying people shouldn’t get a pat on the back from peers for doing well… I’m saying chuck the celebrity cult heroes – from Chomsky and Chavez to Reagan and Schwarzenegger to Colbert and Limbaugh. I’m not saying “trust no one”—obviously you get to know some people, and realize they might be right when you are wrong, or just uninformed—but I am saying that people often use whatever they have available to them (including humor and rhetoric) to spread their influence, dominate the public sphere, and proselytize their own point of view—a point of view that is not always: “Think for yourself; think reasonably!”
Look, Michael… you work with publishing; I do too, to a very small extent. How easy is it to get your and your colleagues’ work read? Widely? How much of ZNet has been helped out by Chomsky’s celebrity? In many ways Chomsky has become an ICON. Maybe an ICON for free thinking… but ICONs are called ICONs because they are worshiped! I don’t feel safe worshiping people… yes, I look up to some, even Chomsky and you a bit, but religious or revolutionary zeal, imo, tends to close people’s minds to free thinking. Famous people are often promoted… if not tirelessly self-promoting, at least promoted by those around them that believe in their cause. Although I’m guilty in part of doing this… I think to a large extent it’s a BS game where the loudest mouth or the best sales pitch wins—their agenda plows through.
Maybe the whole “indie” scene is only relevant to selling out in capitalism. But I think there’s something deeper going on there: smaller budget movies, home-made presses, DIY garage bands… this is about empowering people to grab the public microphone, and be heard too… to be more than consumers of culture, but creators of it. So yeah… I think the whole fame-celebrity thing is bunk from top to bottom… a way for the few to monopolize the cultural media systems. Do you really want your voice in culture to be Represented by someone else? What happened to the notion of decentralizing power? It’s it really more of a NECESSITY to spread the wealth evenly than it is to spread the “representation” of our culture’s self-reflection through the media? Do we find the meaning of life more through money, or through our culture?
It could be that latching on to individual “leaders” of movements, who become icons… this could be a natural tendency. But I think it’s a lot like monopolizing money—it is a type of power: power of leaders to get things done the way they want them done. If these leaders don’t have power for their fame—can’t rally the crowd behind their movement; then they might be representatives of a movement… but I thought part of the par- part of parecon or parpolity was that people participate and don’t rely on representatives—more of a direct democracy.
So no… I do not think fame is something that should be encouraged… and not even close to being held as an element in one’s ideal socio-economic vision.
I don’t know… maybe we’re talking past each other with our own personal anecdotal experience—you see fame as benign; I see it as the next (and also current) type of class and power struggle. This might be a waste of both of our times… especially if we’re the only one’s reading it and getting anything from it. I think your abc’s of fame acquisition and power abuse (that you think would not exist in Parecon) already exist. There are plenty of wealthy people that don’t have the power of those with a bit of fame. Are you suggesting that prisoners have no power? I can name a few that have got people riled. Not because they have or had money… but because they had fame. Fame can be used for good… but so can money. Both are a part of power… and it’s power that should be shared, not wielded. Again, why not a history of the marginalized rather than the central “players?” Why not a present ruled from the margins, not from the center? If you are suggesting that fame carries no power, I say that flies in the face of experience. If you say fame without money does nothing, again what about the wealthy without fame, and the famous without wealth (like those prisoners).
Are YOU serious?
Reply this comment
Re: Are YOU Serious?
By Albert, Michael at Jul 07, 2010 15:09 PM
JD -
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Are YOU Serious?
By Casten, J.D. at Jul 07, 2010 19:30 PM
Michael—I’ll try to be brief, as I believe you are already finished. I’ll thank you for your time, though I think you misperceive how insulting your tone is at time… maybe mine was as well, and if that is true, I apologize.
I think part of our problem, is that I’m talking about BOTH the present, and the possible future. It may be that with the media recommendations made with Parpolity, some of the issues I’m concerned with would not occur. Another problem, is that I do not have a solution to what I see as a “fame problem” (no future system), but only indicators of how fame decentralization is being addressed in the present (this is why I mentioned the internet, the “indie” scene, and DIY endeavors).
I think it possible to miss the forests for the trees, and that is what I think you do with your “close readings.”
Often, within the scope of talking about economics, you talk about a certain, say, 20%, who have all the empowering jobs, while 80% have the crap jobs. Certainly this is a problem. But I think it is a similar problem, when in the current Social sphere, less than 20% (the famous, and the “gatekeepers” of public media) determine how the rest (more than 80%) are, for want of a better word, “represented” in our public media culture. It is a case of the media industry shaping our cultural present and our history… a large element of how we see ourselves, and understand who we are. In many ways I would take some of your (and others’) insights into economics, and apply them to the social sphere. Like members of the Frankfurt School (Adorno, etc.)—I don’t see the economic base as more important than the social super-structure. As I said, maybe parpolity addresses this, but your parecon use of fame as an incentive does not.
I think many of the things you say about fame could be equally said about money. Having a lot when others don’t is not necessarily a bad thing. In some cases it might even be merited: legitimate. But the system that drives inequality, with both money and fame: Power inequality, is seriously flawed.
Here I will look at quote by you:
“You just want me to say you are correct, fully, in the precise words you use, and views you express, about something you call fame. Well, if you say it has negative - as well as positive - effects now, I agree. If you say it can have negative effects in the future, I agree. If you say we ought to construct social relations to minimize the likelihood of those ill effects having serious impact, I agree. Indeed, I offer paths to all those results.”
Michael, I’m not looking validation of my specific views from you—but here you’ve basically said you get the general point that I was trying to make. Do you agree that fame is a form of power? I think you do. But your views that it can be a legitimate form of power for the few are not compelling to me—that we ought to look up to certain people because they deserve it—due mainly to the “appeal to authority” “ad hominem” point I made earlier.
I don’t think fame, or as you call it, social esteem, is all that necessary for Parecon to work. I’m not sure why you are holding on to it, other than possibly to get ME to clarify MY argument. Thanks for that—I’ll work on it.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Are YOU Serious?
By Albert, Michael at Jul 07, 2010 20:01 PM
You ask a question.
No, fame isn't power much less warranted power, in my view as I have repeatedly indicated. In certain contexts, however, it can lead toward, or enlarge both, or have bad effects, as well.
Fame, being known, is not like class. It is not something that must be eliminated as the only means to forestall it having horrible implications.
Your way of reading the paragraph you quote is a good example of what I mean by your wanting me to simply agree with your position - and thus looking only to find a way to see my words as doing so - despite that they quite obviously do not.
I have said what I think over and over - and it seems to me that this time too - even when I have said that it is what you have done up to now - you again haven't responded. You repeat your views, and ignore the actual reply I offered.... The only para you did reply to, honestly, you didn't reply to. Okay, so be it.
As to my tone being insulting - I am not sure why you find it so...it is certainly not my intention to insult you. But it is my intention to be honest with you. And I do think you are engaging in a discussion without bothering to attend to the actual words of your partner in the discussion. I disgree with something you offer and give you reasons, or examples, and you ignore it. I provide parallel examples, and you ignore them. I state my views and you don't seem to hear it. Sorry, but that is my impression, and to not point it out, when it occurs over and over, would be patronizing you, which I happen to think really would be insulting.
I have told you my actual thoughts regarding everything you have asked, or offered, over and over. That is respectful, it seems to me. You have in turn ignored and failed to react to almost all of my replies to your offerings, simply repeating yourself as if what I offered needed no response, but was merely silly or something.
Your saying I get lost in the details seems to me to be saying I sholdn't think about what you are writing, just grab a little tone from it, and tell me you like it - that's what I hear you saying. When I take what you have written seriously, think about it, assess it and offer reactions to it - that is felt to be unreasonable...well, okay. Clearly, I shouldn't bother. But if you look at your original piece, it should be clear that you appeared to be directing it at me, in the belief it was substantial and serious...
Being honest should not feel insulting - nor should taking what you write seriously - you could either agree or disagree with what I offer...I would think - offering reasons why, as I have done with what you have written. Being nasty, or wasting your time - that is another thing...or would be...and if something I have written here appears to have had that intent, or has inadvertently had that effect, my apologies...
Reply this comment
The Peer Elite...
By Casten, J.D. at Jul 07, 2010 22:43 PM
First, let me note that I have no solutions to the “fame” issue we have been talking about. My comments on “royalties” had to do with motivating innovation and popular work—you wanted to make this my solution to the fame issue, but it wasn’t meant to be. My reference to “no mass media” was just a suggestion for something to think about.
You are quite wordy, Michael, and seem to want me to go on at similar length to clarify my position. I’ll try not to critique your style though, as that is what I find insulting: making it personal. Is it not possible to summarize your position? Did I mischaracterize you by suggesting that you think that fame can be legitimate? Isn’t that what you’re saying in various ways over and over?
Here is an example of your thinking on this:
“I could go on. What is perhaps more revealing, however, is to take a domain that is pretty healthy - not fully, but somewhat - science. There, there are people with fame. Scientists who become better known. Sometimes it is really famous - einstein and hawking. Other times it is highly known and regarded inside the field. Interestingly, in these cases, the notoriety conveys itself virtually zero power and not much influence either. Not only in areas they are not versed in - but even in their own areas. Famous scientists are routinely admired for past accomplishments, by their peers, and denigrated for the stupidity of their current preoccupations...no herd effect, etc.
In a good society, this would be far far more typical in general.
The problem is you can't seem to hear a nuanced view that says fame can of course be bad - but it isn't remotely like class - and you hear instead, only that fame is either totally innocuous, or exactly as bad as it looms in your view.”
And here:
“Noam spends decades working his ass off digging into the most horrific and gut wrenching data to be found, with a tenacity that is pretty much unprecedented - and also with incredible skill. For this and, actually, more so, for revolutionizing linguistics and cognitive science, he becomes "famous" as in very well known. So far, I think that is both warranted and, in my view, good. Now, he goes to speak somewhere. Many people turn up wanting to hear what he has to say, either about linguistics, sometimes, or international relations, etc. other times, in light of accurate expectations about him and his prior history, etc. However, there are some people who come merely because he is famous, with no real views about his views, or even dismissing them entirely. They come because his being famous makes it an event. They can see friends there, see what the famous look like, brag that they were there, and so on.”
Michael, I’m not claiming that fame is bad, but that it brings with it a kind of power to influence people, not just monetarily, but with ideas, beliefs, and ways of being human culturally. Money isn’t bad either; but I think concentration of power… wither with money or fame is a problem… but more to the point… the economic and media systems that focus power on a few individuals. I see it as a systematic problem.
Let’s take a scientist, like Noam Chomsky. You mention his hard work, and claim “for this… he becomes famous”… I think this is an incredibly naïve view. No. Noam has offered himself to countless interviews, public speeches, debates, etc. He has forced his way into the public… he wasn’t just working hard, in isolated study. He really has “put himself out there.” He has worked hard not only on his issues, but at getting heard in the public. But how did he even get started? By offering his work to peer review, I imagine, where it was accepted and then caught on with his wider audience. It’ s a lot like American Idol—although the public phones in their votes, it is a panel of three judges that determine who out of thousands gets to be viewed by the public at large. How often do we hear about politicians being vetted by an elite bunch? It is the coterie of “peer review” that I’m pointing to as the “gatekeepers” of public exposure. I’m not sure if there could be a better system (ZNet does it with their official writers)—maybe something like Wikipedia works—but I think it is a case where an elite group, often self-selected (or incestuously small-group selected), determine what is able to be judged by the public at large. Chomsky himself touches on this a bit when talking about media filters. And often, one doesn’t get peer review, but for their connections to already established scholars. The same with bands who open for more famous acts to get exposure. I’d say you have worked at times, as something of an opening act for Chomsky… prying your way into the public media arena by way of venues and forums that have already been established.
Now I’ve repeatedly said that the parpolity focus on the media might address these issues; I’m not sure—I’ll look into it. And if all you mean by “social esteem” is that someone get a pat on the back from immediate peers, I have no big problem with your including that in parecon… but I hardly think that a pat on the back from peers is going to be that big of a motivator for innovation.
Reply this comment
Media "Power"
By Casten, J.D. at Jul 08, 2010 10:08 AM
Also… I think an issue that divides us is a basic definition of “power.” I mean by it, the basic ability to get things done—hence my connection of fame with the ability to influence—the ability to help shape beliefs, attitudes, etc.: the motivators of peoples actions in the world. I’m not sure what you mean by “power”… but I think you said it was not connected with influence (I’ve read through this exchange a couple of times).
If I have continued to expand on my views, it is to better situate and contextualize where I’m coming from; for I think you mischaracterized that often—an elliptical rather than head-on approach to your arguments. I’ll admit that my position is fuzzy… more from what I’ve read and thought about, than anything written out in detail—but I think I’ve remained consistent.
Again, I think I get that you think fame can be legitimate (that people can deserve fame and the consequent probable respect for their opinions within their field) and that it conveys no real power (again… not sure what you mean by “power.”)—Hence you think it safe to use “social esteem” as a motivator for people to innovate in society (what this whole “debate” was about)—it is OK to praise people for a job well done.
My view, is that fame does convey power—especially influencing our cultural beliefs—and that such a power should be decentralized: spread as widely as possible, or else you get a concentration of what might be called “culture power.” I believe fame is concentrated mainly through the media (all forms of media from scholarly journals to television sitcoms) that is controlled by and large by critics/peers/gatekeepers—that it is sort of like a “exclusive mans’ club” where you get a “lucky break” by auditioning, or a friendly connection. Although I think, say 50% has to do with publically recognized talent, the other half has to do with connections, luck, plus self and peer promotion. If it were not like an exclusive club, whose members have influence/culture power—I would see it as an OK motivator for innovation. However, I see “fame for the few” as setting up a sort of power-class; and therefore unfit as a motivational tool in an economic system.
I suppose the onus would be on me to prove that fame carries with it the ability to influence people (even though you do not, I think, connect being influential with power). Individually, I think this could be difficult to prove (there are examples: Martin Luther King Jr. was instrumental in the Civil Rights movement)—but systematically, I think it is obvious—with various cultural prejudices that get passed on through the media (for instance, that capitalism is inevitable). What I would suggest is that those who get “praised” to the point of “mainstream fame” are those who fit in with the expectations of culture—some may get famous and fall from grace, other’s may help the entire culture evolve a bit (as with MLK). I guess I’m equating “Fame” with “media power”—and that such should not be concentrated. I’m not sure if this helps with our encounter though.
Reply this comment